Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document C2005/271/48

Case T-324/05: Action brought on 25 August 2005 — Republic of Estonia v Commission of the European Communities

OJ C 271, 29.10.2005, p. 24–25 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

29.10.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/24

Action brought on 25 August 2005 — Republic of Estonia v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-324/05)

(2005/C 271/48)

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Applicant(s): Republic of Estonia (represented by: Lembit Uibo, Agent)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 (OJ L 138 of 1.6.2005, p. 3)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The object of the application is the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 of 31 May 2005 on the determination of surplus quantities of sugar, isoglucose and fructose for the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia. (1)

The applicant relies on the following claims:

—

The adoption of Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 was in breach of essential procedural requirements: the principle of joint responsibility, since commissioner Fischer Boel was empowered to determine the amount of sugar to be eliminated before the adoption of the regulation;

—

As regards the provisions in application of the EC Treaty, Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 infringes Regulation (EC) No 60/2004, which is its legal basis, since:

(a)

contrary to Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 60/2004, Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 includes, in determining the excess quantity of sugar, the quantity of sugar held in private households;

(b)

contrary to Article 6(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 60/2004, the Commission did not take into account the specific circumstances of stockpiling in Estonia;

—

Breach of the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 253 EC, since in Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 no reasons are given with respect to the inclusion in the calculation of the amount of excess stocks of sugar held in private households and with respect to the failure to take into account the circumstances of stockpiling;

—

Breach of the principle of sound administration, since when adopting Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 the Commission did not take into account the specific circumstances of stockpiling in Estonia, including the EU's own contribution to increased imports of sugar;

—

Breach of the principle of good faith, since no measures of any sort were adopted to deter increased exports from the EU to Estonia, and Estonia's countermeasures were blocked;

—

Breach of the principle of non-discrimination, since the calculation of excess sugar stocks laid down by Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 discriminates against Estonia compared to States which have previously acceded, and any measures implementing Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 would bring about discrimination against Estonian undertakings or households compared to the corresponding groups in States which have previously acceded or compared to undertakings in the so-called old Member States;

—

Infringement of the right to property of undertakings and/or private households, since any measures implementing Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 would impose a restriction on them which could not be justified by a legitimate aim and would be a disproportionate interference with their rights;

—

Breach of the principle of proportionality, since the obligation laid down in Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 to eliminate a quantity of sugar corresponding to the amount of sugar held in private households does not fulfil a legitimate objective and is a disproportionate interference with their rights.

(1)  OJ L 138 of 1.6.2005, p. 3.

Top